Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33292711›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2020

De-implementation of detrimental feeding practices: a pilot protocol.

Taren Swindle, Julie M Rutledge, Susan L Johnson, James P Selig, Geoff M Curran

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Taren SwindleDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham St, #530, Little Rock, AR, 72205-7199, USA. tswindle@uams.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7231-6002
Julie M RutledgeCollege of Applied and Natural Sciences, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, USA.
Susan L JohnsonDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, USA.
James P SeligCollege of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA.
Geoff M CurranDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, USA.
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USCentral Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System · USLouisiana Tech University · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Developing and Testing Implementation Strategies for Evidence-Based Obesity Prevention in ChildcareK01DK110141 · NIDDK · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI SWINDLE, TAREN · 2016 to 2019
$460k
De-Implementation of Detrimental Feeding Practices in Childcare- ResubmissionR03DK117197 · NIDDK · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI SWINDLE, TAREN · 2019 to 2020
$228k
Arkansas Biosciences Institute NANIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK110141NIDDK NIH HHS K01DK110141NIDDK NIH HHS R03 DK117197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly childhood educators (ECEs) often use detrimental feeding practices and are slow to implement positive feeding practices. Nevertheless, few studies have aimed to understand and change ECEs' feeding practices. This gap needs to be addressed because implementation (i.e., adding new, evidence-based practices) and de-implementation (i.e., stopping low-value or harmful practices) are distinct processes that require unique strategies.

methodsWe will develop a de-implementation strategy for detrimental feeding practices using evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) sessions to engage stakeholders and draw on the Niven process model for de-implementation. Then, we will investigate the effects of the de-implementation strategy in a proof-of-principle study. The de-implementation strategy will be evaluated in 2 partnering childcare agencies using a pre-post, within-site design. For our primary outcome, we will interview educators throughout the school year to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and survey them with standard measures for assessing feasibility and acceptability. For secondary outcomes, we will investigate its effects on the use of detrimental and evidence-based feeding practices by teachers and impacts on child BMI and diet. DISCUSSION: The current study will establish the feasibility and acceptability of our de-implementation approach and will provide preliminary data toward 3 predicted secondary outcomes: (1) decreased detrimental feeding practices by ECEs, (2) increased adoption of and fidelity to nutrition promotion practices, and (3) improved child dietary outcomes. These results are expected to contribute to the uptake and sustainability of mealtime interventions to improve the diets of young children. Results will also apply to the field of implementation science by informing processes for developing de-implementation approaches in a community setting.

Indexed as

ChildcareDe-implementationFeeding practicesImplementation scienceNutrition

Identifiers

PMID33292711
PMCPMC7678218
OpenAlexW3100472019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.